Crysis "Ultra High" Benchmarks + Overclocking!

jonnylaris · 16 Oct 2008 at 04:07

What Ultra High does:

- Better shadows
- Improved HDR
- Parallax Mapping
- Improves quality textures, terrain and vegetation
- Lightning improved
- High Quality particles
- Tweaked Lods for best FPS/Quality relation.

You can find some more screens here.

Get it http://games.softpedia.com/get/Tools/Crysis-Ultra-High-Quality-Custom-Config.shtml"]here.

Results:

Here are the results I acheived using the benchmark tool as described here. And the build in my signiture.

Overclocking:

I used 3 clock settings for this test on my single EVGA 280 GTX, they are:

Green line(stock): Core 602mhz / Shader 1296mhz / Memory 1107mhz
Orange line(OC): Core 650mhz / Shader 1400mhz / Memory 1150mhz
Red line(OC): Core 670mhz / Shader 1442mhz / Memory 1200mhz

Idle GPU temps were 44c. Max load temps were around 77-79c after 30-40 mins of crysis.

Rig

Build log of my machine can be found here, and overclocking log here.

All benchmarks were ran on XP 64bit with DX9 and the above ultra high config.

Scougar · 16 Oct 2008 at 11:30

Can't see the link. Is this technically better than Very High setting?

jonnylaris · 16 Oct 2008 at 11:39

Scougar said:
Can't see the link. Is this technically better than Very High setting?

Try the link now. Really big difference with ultra vs very high

Scougar · 16 Oct 2008 at 11:46

Sorry, meant the link is blocked from work. So there are actually better options than having everything set to very high? How so?

jonnylaris · 16 Oct 2008 at 11:49

Scougar said:
Sorry, meant the link is blocked from work. So there are actually better options than having everything set to very high? How so?

Yup, the cvars (configs) have been tweaked to allow for better lighting etc. You need a BEAST system to run this tho.

psychas · 16 Oct 2008 at 11:56

damn that fps is way low for normal gaming experience

jonnylaris · 16 Oct 2008 at 11:57

psychas said:
damn that fps is way low for normal gaming experience

try playing it on your rig, most people get about 15 fps

psychas · 16 Oct 2008 at 12:02

jonnylaris said:
try playing it on your rig, most people get about 15 fps

i did play with some ulta high config on set to lvl 4 and it was playable but not on my standards so did not fish first crysis yet. hopefully 4870 1 gig will play it better then my current card

willhub · 16 Oct 2008 at 12:42

I might try this tonight but I rekon I wont be getting much more than 20fps, no point unless you got SLi GTX280 lol.

jonnylaris · 16 Oct 2008 at 14:18

willhub said:
I might try this tonight but I rekon I wont be getting much more than 20fps, no point unless you got SLi GTX280 lol.

ViRuS2k · 16 Oct 2008 at 15:32

Hmmmm would i be able to get good frames with a 4870X2 ? with this config ?

sambo_joseph · 16 Oct 2008 at 15:54

wow, the game definately does look a lot better, and i am happily playing it on my comp at 1680x1050 smoothly...

something must be wrong here

jonnylaris · 16 Oct 2008 at 16:22

sambo_joseph said:
wow, the game definately does look a lot better, and i am happily playing it on my comp at 1680x1050 smoothly...

something must be wrong here

run the benchmark tool

Strife212 · 16 Oct 2008 at 16:46

I think iIm equipped to try this

Two GTX 280's, I'll report back!

jonnylaris · 16 Oct 2008 at 16:55

Strife212 said:
I think i'm equipped to try this Two GTX 280's, ill report back

nice

willhub · 16 Oct 2008 at 16:55

Strife212 said:
I think i'm equipped to try this Two GTX 280's, ill report back

Two GTX 280's and one bottleneck

Strife212 · 16 Oct 2008 at 16:57

Sshhh you

Ok - just ran the test:

Ultra High 1920x1200 4xAA Vista 64 Bit

Average FPS: 37.31

It runs nicely, not too sure on the graphics of it yet though, I always find it hard to tell the difference after stuff like this has been applied.

Edit: Just took two comparison screenshots. Hmm... the lighting between the two is totally different actually. The custom config is a lot darker. Not sure which I prefer.

ViRuS2k · 16 Oct 2008 at 17:26

Ok after more testing...

that above config is rubbish on my system.

with DX9 path and above Cvars + auto i get very bad performance

now useing the same resolution and ingame AA with DX10 path and All very high ingame its far smoother and higher frames than the above config under dx9 path...

whats up with that lol
i thought the above config under dx9 was to make it look just as good as dx10 mode but without the frames hit....

to me it seems the other way around lol

jonnylaris · 16 Oct 2008 at 20:20

Looks far better than very high on my system! I'l take a few screeny comparisons later

jonnylaris · 16 Oct 2008 at 20:20

Strife212 said:
Sshhh you

Ok - just ran the test:

Ultra High 1920x1200 4xAA Vista 64 Bit

Average FPS: 37.31

It runs nicely, not too sure on the graphics of it yet though, I always find it hard to tell the difference after stuff like this has been applied.

Edit: Just took two comparison screenshots. Hmm... the lighting between the two is totally different actually. The custom config is a lot darker. Not sure which I prefer.

Thats pretty decent for sli